Page 1 of 3
allaince ranking should be changed
Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 10:10 am
by papa~smurf
I believe that alliances should be ranked, not in total power, but by combined Military Experience'
this would show better what allainces really play the game, and not by who could sit idle the longest, building stats.
let the argument start ...lol
Re: allaince ranking should be changed
Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 10:11 am
by teesdale
hmm... u just want us to be rank 1 papa
Re: allaince ranking should be changed
Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 10:24 am
by papa~smurf
i'm not the one with a [spoiler]rank 18[/spoiler] ME you massing **Filtered**
Re: allaince ranking should be changed
Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 11:03 am
by BMMJ13
lol, seems like a good idea. Even if it was based on both, half power/half m/e, would show who can handle their power.
Re: allaince ranking should be changed
Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 11:31 am
by Z E R O
Just ME would be interesting to see, and way more applicable.
Re: allaince ranking should be changed
Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 11:41 am
by Platypus0
i think that AC should be removed from total power, or make suicide rate 1 - 1.
and ME calc is wrong atm..
Re: allaince ranking should be changed
Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 11:42 am
by Lore
I disagree with the idea myself.
Based solely on time. I agree the ranking system is not the best, but ME ranks are stupid as they can skew badly over time. Imagine the top 10 ME in 1 alliance and then they go inactive with 0 stats. They would stat rank 1 for a long, long time.
Plus I hope he resets ME yearly as its impossible for a newer player to ever hope to rank now. I'd like to see them archived like Q waves. After some time even the ME score loses its meaning outside the top 25
Re: allaince ranking should be changed
Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 11:54 am
by papa~smurf
Lore wrote:I disagree with the idea myself.
Based solely on time. I agree the ranking system is not the best, but ME ranks are stupid as they can skew badly over time. Imagine the top 10 ME in 1 alliance and then they go inactive with 0 stats. They would stat rank 1 for a long, long time.
Plus I hope he resets ME yearly as its impossible for a newer player to ever hope to rank now. I'd like to see them archived like Q waves. After some time even the ME score loses its meaning outside the top 25
didn't think of that, maybe a system that ranked the top alliance me once a month, and tie it into the allaince bank system that is yet to be use, but we keep paying in
Re: allaince ranking should be changed
Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 11:58 am
by Lore
papa~smurf wrote:didn't think of that, maybe a system that ranked the top alliance me once a month, and tie it into the allaince bank system that is yet to be use, but we keep paying in
Why? what possible use is there in that?
1. Tho hated by most, Stat building and holding income is a challenge and an art
2. Most people with massive ME has alot of time. Someone with a full time job or works overtime should not be punished for not having as many hrs to put in.
Re: allaince ranking should be changed
Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 12:07 pm
by Tacet
I agree with Lore. Even if the ME would be based i.e. on ME gained during the last month, it would penalize players who have limited time. I can log in quite often, but I can't spend enough time to be a serious ME player. Despite that I've built a fair account, and have had my share of fun massing ppl and being massed. SGW (in my opinion) is a slow paced, turn based game. That was the #1 reason why I started playing it. Mmm, these statements might earn me some debate. Well, let it be.
It would be better to keep alliance ranks the way they are, and to show the extra stats such as ME, total army size and total UP. While these would all be nice and interesting to see I fail to see how it would be worth the extra server time used to calculate them all.
Re: allaince ranking should be changed
Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 12:32 pm
by ~Deathlok~
power and mil. exp.=aliance ranking,maybe
Re: allaince ranking should be changed
Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 2:31 pm
by ~wolverine~
I to agree with lore to. If say Priller and blahh were in 1 alliance together, just together i think they would be very high for a long time and jedi tank if he was in it aswell it would be 1st for quite a while.
Re: allaince ranking should be changed
Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 2:44 pm
by Lore
I mean lets be honest, really honest.
Sitting with little to no stats massing people who have stats knowing they can retaliate, Why should that rank you as #1???
Not saying top ME's do so, just saying it is a tactic that game mechanics allow, so do you really wanna rank someone that way?
Re: allaince ranking should be changed
Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 7:31 pm
by papa~smurf
Lore wrote:I mean lets be honest, really honest.
Sitting with little to no stats massing people who have stats knowing they can retaliate, Why should that rank you as #1???
Not saying top ME's do so, just saying it is a tactic that game mechanics allow, so do you really wanna rank someone that way?
it just as valid a way to rank players, as is the way it is done now
But we are talking whole alliance ME, ME is a good gauge of activity, be slight(raiding and farming) or large (massing). So is it right, that alliances that are active as war alliances (little stats due to return massing) vs alliances filled with barely active accounts share ranks. On that note, hats off DDE, almost always in the top five, almost always at war.
Also if u notice, there is a plus/minus at the end of the ME calculations. Don't know if Jason planned on having loses count against your rank when he started it, but I think it's time that happen . ME ranking is inflated right now because they don't take in to account the loses major Massers take from those massing, even if it is in lost Attack supers, or return massing because of there actions. If this would happen, then the ranking of whole alliance ME would change, because we all know the actions of one offen bring lost to all.
Re: allaince ranking should be changed
Posted: Sat Dec 27, 2008 6:46 am
by Lore
papa~smurf wrote:1it just as valid a way to rank players, as is the way it is done now
1. I think the definition of what rank means is in question here. Rank has always been about stats. Now its being looked at more as activity. I'll explain more later, but because of the "activity" part of it I disagree with the statement.
2But we are talking whole alliance ME, ME is a good gauge of activity, be slight(raiding and farming) or large (massing). So is it right, that alliances that are active as war alliances (little stats due to return massing) vs alliances filled with barely active accounts share ranks. On that note, hats off DDE, almost always in the top five, almost always at war.
I personally fully disagree with this statement. Let me explain. Who is more active? A mid range account built defense heavy who loggs in every 2 hrs to bank and train, and who crit/nox at night to control his income,,,OR,,,A guy who loggs in before bed 1 time a day to mass anything up and running be it def or MS? Whos more active? Whos has more ME? I see this day after day.
As for sharing Ranks,,,,,,,,I'm torn. I do see and agree with your point, but also personally think if they are truely inactive, then they will not hold their rank.
As for the hats off, 1 warrior to another, Thank You
3Also if u notice, there is a plus/minus at the end of the ME calculations. Don't know if Jason planned on having loses count against your rank when he started it, but I think it's time that happen . ME ranking is inflated right now because they don't take in to account the loses major Massers take from those massing, even if it is in lost Attack supers, or return massing because of there actions. If this would happen, then the ranking of whole alliance ME would change, because we all know the actions of one offen bring lost to all.
I fully 100% agree your losses should count against you. I also think they should be logged, and reset yearly as a Q wave is done as they will soon loss their meaning as an account 1 or 2 yrs old will never be able to compete in ME.